The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 01.09.2018 WorkshopNotice of M eeting of the Governing B ody of the City of Georgetown, Texas J anuary 9 , 2 0 1 8 The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on January 9, 2018 at 4:00 PM at Council Chambers - 101 East 7th Street The City o f Georgetown is committed to co mpliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you re quire assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or ac c ommo datio ns will be provided upo n request. P lease contact the City Se c retary's Office, at least three (3 ) days prio r to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930- 3652 o r City Hall at 113 East 8th Street fo r additional information; TTY use rs ro ute through Relay Texas at 7 11. Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop - A Re vie w o f Grace Heritage Center Operating Agreement -- Laurie Bre wer, Assistant City Manager B Prese ntation on Interim Municipal Utility District (MUD) Policy and discussio n on potential revisio ns -- Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager Exe cutive Se ssion In compliance with the Open Meetings Ac t, Chapter 551, Government Co de , Verno n's Texas Codes, Annotate d, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular se ssio n. C Se c . 55 1.0 71 : Consul tati on wi th Atto rney Advic e from attorney about pending o r contemplated litigation and othe r matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda items Se c . 55 1.0 72 : Del i berati ons about Real Pro perty - Fire Station 7 Site Construction Se c . 55 1:0 74 : Personnel Matte r s City Manager, City Attorney, City Se c retary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluatio n, reassignment, duties, discipline, o r dismissal Se c . 55 1.0 87 : Del i berati on Regardi ng Eco nomi c Devel opment Ne go ti ati ons - Pro ject Fish - Pro ject Ollie - Pro ject P ilates Adjournme nt Ce rtificate of Posting I, Shelley No wling, City S ecretary for the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , do hereby c ertify that this Notic e o f Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lac e read ily acc es s ib le to the general pub lic at all times , o n the _____ day of _________________, 2018, at __________, and remained so p o s ted for at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the Page 1 of 68 s cheduled time of s aid meeting. __________________________________ Shelley No wling, City S ecretary Page 2 of 68 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop January 9, 2018 SUBJECT: Review of Grace Heritage Center Operating Agre e ment -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: The City currently leases the Grace Heritage Cente r, lo cated at 811 Main Street, to Preservation Georgetown (forme rly the Georgetown He ritage Society) to operate and promote history and historic tourism in Geo rgetown. The current lease is effective No vember 1 , 2 01 5 for a three year period and has an o ption to renew at the curre nt terms for an additional 3 year period. The lease provide s a 18 0 day notice period sho uld either party wish to terminate the lease. The Co unc il previously directed staff to bring back co nsiderations for long term optio ns fo r the fac ility once renovations were co mplete. Summary of ag r e e ment: City pro vides interior and exterior mainte nance, including HVAC and plumbing. GHS/P G provides insurance and quarterly rent payments of $975. GHS/P G shall provide space for an exhibitio n gallery, instructional spac e , meeting facilities, a gift display, and/or o ther temporary exhibits at the Pro perty. Minim um hours of ope ratio n shall be Thursday and Friday, 9-5, Sunday, 1 -4; and operation during the fo llowing downtown events; First Fridays, Red Poppy Festival, the Lighting of the Square and Christmas Stro ll. All hours of operatio n are subject to change when the y conflict with venue rental. GHS/P G shall be allowed to rent the P roperty or a portion thereof for meetings or events. Such rentals shall be subject to all applicable Operating Re quirements contained in this Exhibit and subject to the provisions of the Agreement. GHS/P G shall have a minimum of six public events per year, free and o pe n to the public, related to history, tourism o r culture. GHS/P G shall provide the brochures and publicatio ns on history to provide to the public. GHS/P G shall pro vide all regular housekeeping o f the premises, including gift display, instructional spac e , and public space. Quarte rly Reports. The GHS/PG shall submit to the City Manager quarterly, written reports with info rmation that includes: door count, any public events, number of eve nt rentals, number of volunte e r hours, a financial report, and attendanc e o f special events.Annual Report. GHS/PG shall pre pare and submit t o t he Ci t y Co unc il and the City Manager an annual report not later than thirty (30) days following the anniversary date each year during the te rm of this Agreement. The annual repo rt shall provide totals for the info rmation co mpiled in quarterly reports and shall present a strategic plan to the City Council by the end o f the first year o f the term of this Agreeme nt. Subsequent annual reports will include an updated strategic plan. The City Manager and the President o f the Georgetown Heritage Socie ty will hold an annual meeting to disc uss the annual report. Options 1. Exercise 3 ye ar renewal option with Preservatio n GT under current lease 2. Negotiate ne w terms with Preservation GT 3. Issue compe titive Request for Proposals for o peratio ns of facility 4. Request propo sals or bids for sale of prope rty * Subdivide from Fo unders Park * Offer P GT first right of negotiation 5. Sell building to be mo ved * Subdivide from Fo unders Park Offer * PGT first right of negotiation 6. Other o ptions as directed by Council FINANCIAL IMPACT: Page 3 of 68 P reservation Georgetown pays rent to the City in quarterly payments of $975, fo r an annual total of $3,900. Estimated annual maintenance co st for the facility is $13,365 , and is budgeted in the Facilitie s Maintenance Fund. SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENT S: Description Leas e Agreement Valuatio n Info rmation P res entation His toric al Des ignatio n Pho tos 1 His toric al Des ignatio n Pho tos 2 Page 4 of 68 Page 5 of 68 Page 6 of 68 Page 7 of 68 Page 8 of 68 Page 9 of 68 Page 10 of 68 Page 11 of 68 Page 12 of 68 Page 13 of 68 Page 14 of 68 Page 15 of 68 1/3/2018 1 City Council Workshop January 9, 2018 Grace Heritage Center Operating Agreement Location - Downtown 9 th and Main City of Georgetown Page 16 of 68 1/3/2018 2 Agenda • Background/History • Current Lease Agreement • Options City of Georgetown Background/History • Grace Episcopal Church was built ca. 1881, and belonged to the congregation until 1992 • City of Georgetown acquired Grace Heritage Center in 1992 • The City and Georgetown Heritage Society partnered to move the structure and develop the property at 811 South Main Street • City of Georgetown currently owns the facility City of Georgetown Page 17 of 68 1/3/2018 3 GHS Leases • Original Lease – 1994 • Second Lease – 2000 • Third Lease – 2005 – Expired August 23, 2015 • Current Lease – expires October 2018 – 3 Year Lease with option to renew for an additional 3 year period at same terms City of Georgetown 2015 Lease Requirements • The City of Georgetown shall: – Maintain the exterior of the structure – Maintain interior, including HVAC, plumbing – Provide first right of negotiation to GHS/Preservation GT if City intends to transfer ownership City of Georgetown Page 18 of 68 1/3/2018 4 2015 Lease Requirements • Preservation Georgetown shall: – Pay $3900 in rent and maintain insurance – Provide quarterly and annual reporting – Provide exhibition, instructional, and meeting space • Minimum hours established Thr-Fri 9-5 Sun 1-4 • Operational during downtown special events City of Georgetown 2015 Lease Requirements • Preservation Georgetown shall: – Hold minimum of six public events per year related to history, tourism or culture – Provide historic brochures, publications and booklets to visitors – Be allowed to rent out property for meetings and events City of Georgetown Page 19 of 68 1/3/2018 5 Current Status and Consideration • Previous council direction was to discuss long term options for facility – Renovations complete – Currently within 180 day period to provide notice if the Council wishes to terminate at Oct 31 City of Georgetown Downtown Function - Concept Plan - 1992 • Grace Heritage Center will serve the following roles: – Provide office space for GHS – House the GHS archives – Serve as education and research center – Function as arrival and departure point for tours – Provide visitor information and public meeting space – Serve as a special presentation center – Be staffed by GHS volunteers City of Georgetown Page 20 of 68 1/3/2018 6 Downtown Purpose • Consider whether previous plan meets current Council goals • Functionality in the Downtown – Arts and Culture – Pedestrian traffic – Economic impact • “High Priority” designation on historic resource survey City of Georgetown Options/Direction to Staff 1. Exercise 3 year renewal option with Preservation GT under current lease 2. Negotiate new terms with Preservation GT 3. Issue competitive Request for Proposals for operations of facility 4. Request proposals or bids for sale of property *Subdivide from Founders Park *Offer PGT first right of negotiation 5. Sell building to be moved *Subdivide from Founders Park *Offer PGT first right of negotiation 6. Other options as directed by Council City of Georgetown Page 21 of 68 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Downtown District Address:N/A Main/9th St 2016 Survey ID:125308 A City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R041460Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/2/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1881 Bungalow Other: Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan Rectangular T-plan Four Square L-plan Irregular Plan* International Ranch No Style Post-war Modern Commercial Style Other: Pueblo Revival Prairie Art Deco Spanish Colonial Craftsman Moderne Gothic Revival Neo-Classical Mission Tudor Revival Beaux Arts Monterey Shingle Folk Victorian Renaissance Revival Romanesque Revival Colonial Revival Exotic Revival Log traditional Italianate Eastlake Greek Revival Second Empire Queen Anne Stylistic Influence(s)* Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s) General Notes:Moved from 10th and Main streets to University Ave. in 1955; moved to current site ca. 1995, per Images of America. (Notes from 2007 Survey: Moved from 10th and Main streets to University Ave. in 1955; moved to current site ca. 1995) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:700a ID:224 *Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey. 2007 Survey 1984 Survey Current/Historic Name Grace Heritage Center/Grace Episcopal Church ID:125308 A2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity Latitude:30.635907 Longitude -97.676748 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: Southeast Page 22 of 68 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Downtown District Address:N/A Main/9th St 2016 Survey ID:125308 A City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High Additional Photos EastPhoto Direction NortheastPhoto Direction Page 23 of 68 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop January 9, 2018 SUBJECT: P resentation on Inte rim Municipal Utility District (MUD) Po licy and discussion on po tential revisions -- Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown has been using the Interim Municipal Utility Distric t (MUD) Po licy (the “P olicy”) to review and approve applications for MUDs since September 2 014. Over the past three ye ars, the City has expe rienced a continued interest in MUDs and Public Improvement Districts (PIDs) by de velopers. The Policy has been helpful in providing the Council, staff, and applicants guidance on criteria and process. This presentation will cover purpose of MUDs, background on the Policy, insight o n the City’s consideration of the P olicy in 20 13, review o f Policy’s crite ria, and the City’s practices over the past fo ur (4) years. Staff is seeking fee dback and direction fro m City Council on whether or not to proceed with an update. Information about the presentation is provided in the attac hed P owerP oint and other mate rials. Staff ’s recommendation is provided in the PowerPo int. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The discussion on the interim policy has no direc t fiscal impact. SUBMITTED BY: Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENT S: Description Map o f MUDs as o f 2017 Interim MUD Polic y Checklis t P o werPo int Interim MUD Polic y ap p ro ved 9.23.14 RES 092314-W Page 24 of 68 !!I 0 1 20.5 Miles Le gend 2017 City Limits ETJ_09_2017 Te ra vista MUD Water Oak MUD Oaks at Sa n Gabriel MUD Cimarron Hills MUD Cre scent Bluff MUD Hillwo od MUD Sad dlecreek MU D Parmer Ranch MUD Sha dow Canyon MUD Fairha ve n MUD Page 25 of 68 Interim MUD Policy Checklist Georgetown, TX Consistency with Interim MUD Policy. The City of Georgetown evaluates MUD proposals against consistency with the Interim MUD Policy as follows: Generally Meets Policy Does Not Appear to Meet Policy Policy No. Policy 1 Retain the two threshold questions under Section 13.10.030. 2 Provide examples of “unique factors justifying [MUD] creation” to guide determinations made under Section 13.10.030 3 Submit information with the MUD creation petition that would allow the staff to perform the level of review City Council has directed during consideration of several recent MUD petitions 4 Agree to a cross-departmental “MUD Review Team”. 5 Address provision of public services, and address public safety matters in the Consent Agreement. 6 Address utility service issues, and include those utility service provisions in the consent agreement. 7 Specify the amount of debt intended to be issued, the purpose of the debt, and the debt service schedule and include those financial provisions in the consent agreement. 8 Address future annexation of the MUD, when located in the ETJ.- 9 Require development in a MUD to exceed minimum UDC land use and development standards and address the land use provisions in the consent agreement or related agreement. 10 Require development in a MUD to exceed UDC parkland requirements and address parkland provisions in the consent agreement. 11 Address transportation issues and include transportation provisions in the consent agreement. Page 26 of 68 1/3/2018 1 Interim Municipal Utility District Policy Evaluation City Council Workshop January 9, 2018 Purpose Staff is seeking direction from Council on desired updates to the City’s Interim Municipal Utility District (MUD) Policy based upon practice and lessons learned since the Policy was adopted in 2014. •Advance City Council Strategy •Create Comprehensive Annexation and MUD Strategy 2 Page 27 of 68 1/3/2018 2 Presentation Team • David Morgan, Wayne Reed, Laurie Brewer, Jim Briggs, and Jack Daly, City Manager’s Office • Charlie McNabb, City Attorney’s Office • Sofia Nelson, Planning Department • Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Department • Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Department • Chief Sullivan,Fire Department 3 Presentation Overview •Part 1. Purpose of MUDs •Part 2. Background on Interim MUD Policy •Part 3. City Discussion on MUDs in 2013 •Part 4. Interim MUD Policy Criteria •Part 5. Practices Past 4 Years •Part 6. Staff Recommendation •City Council Direction 4 Page 28 of 68 1/3/2018 3 5 Part 1 Purpose of MUDs Purpose of MUDs • A governmental agency • Authorized by the Texas Constitution and regulated by Chapters 54 and 49 of the Texas Water Code. • Governed by elected Board of Directors • A taxing entity • Different Stakeholders Future Residents and Businesses City of Georgetown Master Developer 6 Page 29 of 68 1/3/2018 4 Purpose of a MUD is to… • Serve a public use and benefit • Supplement and not supplant municipal services • Expand transportation and commerce • Provide needed funding to finance transportation, water, wastewater, stormwater, parks, drainage, etc • Promote the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, employers, employees, and consumers in the district and the general public 7 8 Part 2 Background on Interim MUD Policy Page 30 of 68 1/3/2018 5 Georgetown MUDs 2004 - 2017 9 Georgetown MUDs 2004 - 2017 10 Terra Vista (2004) Water Oak (2006) Oaks at San Gabriel (2007) Cimaron Hills (2012) Crescent Bluff (2014) Hillwood (2014) Parmer Ranch (2015) Saddlecreek (2) (2015) Shadow Canyon (2016) MUD Policy 2010 In-city MUD ETJ MUD Legend Page 31 of 68 1/3/2018 6 Background on Interim MUD Policy • 2004-2014… City received several requests for urban level developments outside of city limits – Mostly west of Georgetown – Shortage of buildable lots was increasing pressure – Requests were for locations without utility services and were distant from existing infrastructure • Council sought to understand… – Implications of population growth in and around Georgetown – Impact to utilities and future land uses long-term – Tools available to improve quality of development 11 12 Each box represents 1,035 dwelling units Growth and Population Exercise 2013Interest in Urban Level Development Background on MUD Interim Policy Page 32 of 68 1/3/2018 7 • City’s Utility Master Plans – Development pressure along South San Gabriel River in ETJ in 2013-2014 – Intent to serve future development utilities based on Future Land Use Plan – Timing was a factor for City to fund extension of utilities in near future 13 Background on Interim MUD Policy • Water Services (GUS & CTSUD) – Pre-merger issue for urban density level north & west of Georgetown – Merger facilitated planning for safe, reliable water service in more urbanized part of former CTSUD • Wastewater remains an issue – Septic – large lot development was the norm without availability of wastewater service – Central sewer – enabled land uses consistent with Future Land Use Plan 14 Background on Interim MUD Policy Page 33 of 68 1/3/2018 8 15 Part 3 City Discussion on MUDs in 2013 Potential Issues (2013) • Advantages – Eases developer pro-forma – Possibility of quicker residential construction – Indirect benefits of enlarged retail demand from new rooftops – Potential for higher quality development – Development with sewer rather than septic • Disadvantages – Financing burden shifted to homeowner – MUDs: political entity – PIDs: City component unit • Debt-issuing district potential debt to City • Requires City oversight – Urban levels of density in far flung locations 16 Page 34 of 68 1/3/2018 9 Other Considerations (2013) • Locations with strong utilities may not need districts to provide services • City needs more residential to drive retail • Residential development interest not lacking right now in Georgetown • If districts continue, a market expectation is set to allow even more districts • Lending realities point to further proposals • Staff burden if district negotiating table opened – Existing districts renegotiate terms –Tracking of performance milestones 17 Council Direction (2013) Districts are appropriate in some situations – In locations that can support urban levels of density that are not planned in CIP for utility service – Incentives for: • Unique, special projects beyond the minimum UDC standards • Incentive to spur projects in stagnant times – Regional benefits beyond the district • Such as road link or utility oversizing – Serve as additional option for reimbursement • Developers not eligible for CIP cost-sharing 18 Page 35 of 68 1/3/2018 10 19 Part 4 Interim MUD Policy Criteria Interim MUD Policy Criteria • Policy 1. Threshold Questions - Location 1) If location meets criteria for annexation and is located within the ultimate wastewater service boundary; and 2) If City can provide water and wastewater “at a reasonable cost” and will commence construction within 2 years and “substantially complete” within 4½ yrs • If “no” to 1) and 2) above then Council can create district if determined to be “feasible, practicable, [and] necessary for the provisions of services” 20 Page 36 of 68 1/3/2018 11 Interim MUD Policy Criteria • Policy 1. Threshold Questions - Location 1) If location meets criteria for annexation and is located within the ultimate wastewater service boundary; and 2) If City can provide water and wastewater “at a reasonable cost” and will commence construction within 2 years and “substantially complete” within 4½ yrs • If “yes” to either 1) or 2) above then Council has two options: – Consent to a district by petition submitted by more than 50% of the owners and majority of the voters in the district, or – Commence annexations proceedings 21 Interim MUD Policy Criteria • Policy 2. Unique Factors – Conservation subdivision – Greater tree preservation – Greenways along rivers or creeks – Regional trail connections – Transportation and utility facilities beneficial to the City’s implementation of master plans • Policy 3. Submit MUD Petition • Policy 4. Agree to MUD Petition Review Team 22 Page 37 of 68 1/3/2018 12 Interim MUD Policy Criteria • Policy 5. Provision of Public Services – Require facilities, dedicate sites, and/or pay Fire SIP fees to enhance public services and optimize service delivery • Policy 6. Address Utility Service Issues – Require consistency with City’s utility master plans – Require consent for City to be the provider of water, sewer, solid waste, and electric (wherever possible) – Limit cost-sharing on MUD off-site utility improvements where necessary that will benefit multiple properties – Require impact fees to be assessed at time of final plats for ETJ MUDs and no later than at time of building permit for in-city MUDs 23 Interim MUD Policy Criteria • Policy 7. Debt Issuance – Require a maximum bond issuance amount and issuance period (first to last bonds) – For in-city MUDs, limit debt to “hard costs” associated with on and of-site water and wastewater and possibly for roads – For ETJ MUD, allow debt for the same plus parks and trails facilities open to general public • Policy 8. Future Annexation of MUD – Identify a date certain for annexation of the MUD to be established in creation documents 24 Page 38 of 68 1/3/2018 13 Interim MUD Policy Criteria Following 2 Policies shall apply to “Unique Factors”: • Policy 9. Exceed minimum UDC Development Stds – Restrict age-restricted development <10% of overall residential units – Prohibit correctional facilities, etc… – Require 20% be identified for nonresidential land uses, unless… – Require at least 30% of proposed commercial/retail land uses be developed within first 5 years of first building permit – Require workforce housing – Require public school site and public facility sites, if desired – Require higher standards than what is identified in UDC for certain development standards, such as tree preservation, architectural standards, protection of unique features, etc… 25 Interim MUD Policy Criteria Following 2 Policies shall apply to “Unique Factors”: • Policy 10. Exceed UDC Parkland Requirements – Require parks open to general public supported by Parks and Recreation Board – Require installation and maintenance of park facilities – Require connections to regional trail network and adjacent uses, such as schools – Require regional trail minimum of 10 in width – Require useable trailheads with off-street parking – Require financial contributions to regional park facilities 26 Page 39 of 68 1/3/2018 14 Interim MUD Policy Criteria • Policy 11. Transportation Provisions – Require completion of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and construction of on and off-site improvements – Require dedication of right-of-way consistent with UDC standards and City’s Overall Transportation Plan (OTP) – Require residential subdivisions to be designed with increased connectivity, reduce cul-de-sacs, short block lengths, additional stub outs except for conservation subdivisions 27 28 Part 5 Practices Past 4 Years (2014 – 2017) Page 40 of 68 1/3/2018 15 Practices Past 4 Years • Policy 1. Location –City has approved more in-city (4) than out-of-city (1) • Policy 2. Unique Factors –Greenways along Rivers or Creeks • Hillwood and Crescent Bluff MUDs to add trails within neighborhoods as well as along South San Gabriel River, which will add to trails to be built by Water Oak MUD along river corridor • Policy 5. Public Services & Safety –Fire Stations • Water Oak MUD amendment clarified fire station site dedications • Fire SIP fees have been required with certain MUDs 29 Practices Past 4 Years • Policy 6. Utilities –Utility Infrastructure (extend, oversize, and partnerships) • Crescent Bluff MUD contributed roughly $1.5 million to the SSGI wastewater line • Saddle Creek MUD extended wastewater system • Parmer Ranch MUD to extend wastewater system along Ronald Reagan Blvd. • Policy 7. Debt –Bond Maturity and Issuance Period • City has approved 25 year vs. 20 year for bond maturity • City has maintained 10 year issuance period in most instances • Water Oak MUD was provided 20 year issuance period 30 Page 41 of 68 1/3/2018 16 Practices Past 4 Years • Policy 7. Debt –Tax Rate • Out-of-city MUDs have $0.90 to $0.95/$100 AV tax rates • In-city MUDs have lower tax rates of about $0.55/$100 AV with Hillwood as one exception ($0.66/$100 AV) • Hillwood allowed to issue debt for “hard costs” associated with on and off-site water/wastewater, roads, and parks and trails • Policy 8. Annexation –Provision for future annexation of development • City has consistently addressed potential for annexation of districts in the future 31 Practices Past 4 Years • Policy 9. Land Development –Development Standards Exceed Minimum in UDC • Enhanced architectural standards for residential in all MUDs • Policy 10. Parkland and Trails –Parkland • Hillwood MUD has enhanced parkland development standards for parklands along with private amenity center and trail network • Crescent Bluff MUD will develop parkland along with private amenity center and trail network and construct a public trailhead with parking along South San Gabriel River • Parmer Ranch MUD will develop parkland and extend regional trail along Ronald Reagan Blvd. corridor 32 Page 42 of 68 1/3/2018 17 Practices Past 4 Years • Policy 11. Transportation –Transportation Infrastructure • Crescent Bluff MUD to contribute $1 million toward Water Oak Parkway bridge… supplement Water Oak MUD’s funding • Water Oak MUD amendment (2017) clarified requirement to build all 4 lanes of Water Oak Pkwy. and complete the bridge • Saddle Creek MUD is contributing to arterial that runs through the development • Strategic Partnership Agreements –Sales Tax • City has required SPA to ensure City collects its sales tax from future retail development located in out-of-city MUDs 33 34 Part 6 Staff Recommendation Page 43 of 68 1/3/2018 18 Staff Recommendation Changes to the Policy will require amending Section 13.10 of the UDC (purpose and conditions): • Policy 1. Location – Revise threshold questions – In-city MUDs should be preferred due to recent changes in State law concerning annexations • Policy 2. Unique Factors –No change. Encourage conservation subdivision design (where appropriate), greater tree preservation, greenways and trails along rivers or creeks, and regional transportation and utility facilities • See Policies 9 and 10 35 Staff Recommendation • Policy 3. Submit MUD creation petition and info. – Remove as a policy and require as part of process in UDC • Policy 4. Cross Departmental MUD Review Team – Remove as a policy and require as part of process in UDC • Policy 5. Public Services and Safety –No change. Continue to incorporate fire stations and/or SIP fee • Policy 6. Utility Service Issues –No change. Require extension of utility master plan lines and granting of easements; continue to require City to be provider of water, sewer, solid waste, and electric (wherever possible) 36 Page 44 of 68 1/3/2018 19 Staff Recommendation • Policy 7. Debt –Bonds. Provide up to 25 years for bond maturity and 10 years for issuance between first and last bond sales –Tax Rates • Out-of-city (ETJ) MUDs at $0.90 to $0.95/$100 AV tax rates • In-city MUDs at max of $0.55/$100 AV • Allow in-city MUDs to issue debt for “hard costs” associated with on and off-site water/wastewater, roads, and parks and trails • Policy 8. Future Annexation when in ETJ – Maintain, but unlikely to be actionable (see Policy 1) 37 Staff Recommendation • Policy 9. Exceed minimum UDC Development Stds – Require concurrent PUD application to memorialize standards with in-city MUDs – Remove criteria for all MUDs to contain at least 20% nonresidential land uses; seek consistency with Future Land Use Plan – Remove criteria for portion of commercial land uses to develop in first five years of first building permit – Remove criteria for workforce housing and include criteria for diversity in housing products – Evaluate merit of requiring gross impervious cover… less than UDC – Require higher architectural standards for residential and nonresidential land uses 38 Page 45 of 68 1/3/2018 20 Staff Recommendation • Policy 10. Parkland and Trails –No change. Continue to require development to exceed parkland design and development standards in the UDC • Policy 11. Transportation –No change. Continue to require partnerships on regional transportation infrastructure consistent with the City’s OTP 39 Staff Recommendation • Update Application fee (cover costs) –Revise. Current fee is $1,550, plus fees for professional and legal staff time, to cover cost to process applications 40 Page 46 of 68 1/3/2018 21 Council Direction Does Council desire to update the City’s Interim Municipal Utility District (MUD) Policy based upon practice and lessons learned since the Policy was adopted in 2014? – Direct staff to revise the Policy as presented or with modifications – Direct staff to revise fees 41 Next Steps • Receive input and feedback from City Council • Return to Council in workshop with proposed modifications for MUD Policy 42 Page 47 of 68 Page 48 of 68 Page 49 of 68 Page 50 of 68 Page 51 of 68 Page 52 of 68 Page 53 of 68 Page 54 of 68 Page 55 of 68 Page 56 of 68 Page 57 of 68 Page 58 of 68 Page 59 of 68 Page 60 of 68 Page 61 of 68 Page 62 of 68 Page 63 of 68 Page 64 of 68 Page 65 of 68 Page 66 of 68 Page 67 of 68 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop January 9, 2018 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney Advice from attorney abo ut pending or co ntemplated litigation and o ther matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items Sec. 551.072: De l i berati o ns about Real P roperty - Fire Station 7 Site Construction Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employme nt, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Sec. 551.087: De l i berati o n Regardi ng Economi c Devel opment Negoti ati ons - P roject Fish - P roject Ollie - P roject Pilate s ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Shelley Nowling, City Secretary Page 68 of 68